Twitter editorialising against J K Rowling again.

[IvyTwines]

They're at it again. You'd think the last couple of weeks would have highlighted the value of being able to say your reporting was balanced and free from political bias, but there you go.

@EeeICouldRipATissue

Why is it any different if its in the middle of the night?! Do you think it would be any less threatening if you knew he had been there posting and tying a trans rights banner/raised fist? I wasn't there I was at home in bed when he did it and gone by the time I got there, so I don't mind he knows where I work and posted it on social media?! Aye, right course you would

TRAs were protesting outside a VAWG conference, waving placards bearing slogans such as "TERFs can suck my lady dick". A pretty explicit threat. I don't remember you condemning them.

The argument used for the TRAs who stood outside JKRs home with their banners was everyone knows where she lives, and yet the argument that everyone knows where David Paisley works is different, how?

JKR has GC beliefs.
David Paisley has trans beliefs.

That is the difference.

JKR feeling threatened by those stood outside of her home with their banners was dismissed out of hand, a banner outside of DPs work place (which was removed before he attended work) him feeling threatened is taken seriously.

As far as I am aware Marian didn't put that banner up her 'crime' was to re-tweet it.

Again, I come back to the salient point you are deliberately avoiding - if those who placed that banner outside of David Paisley's work are subject to prosecution, why are those did the same thing at Kathleen Stock's place of work not? Why were those outside of JKRs home not?

The 1M match to charity is definitely good (although heaven knows she has enough money to just donate 2M straight away!)

It is worrying some of the people she's promoting recently tho... Like anti-abortion, anti-gay people.

(obv supporting someone on twitter doesn't mean you share all their views, but she has more followers there than some countries populations! so promoting people definitely has a big impact and she might want to consider I guess)

"individuals who set off smoke bombs"

By "smoke bombs" do you mean this: www.instagram.com/p/CUrjq01MbQ1/

It's a blue flare-like thing outdoors well away from any person. A smoke-bomb is different.

Kathleen Stock does indeed have freedom to have her say, but so does everyone else.

JK Rowling has blocked DP on Twitter, according to DP.

Rowling seems to be implying that she's on the side of gay people and listens to them, but only if they share her viewpoint it seems.

"why are those did the same thing at Kathleen Stock's place of work not"

Because a lot of the protestors were students of the same college which they went to daily to study and protested during daytime?

In the case of Marion Millar and friends, they went out of their way to go a workplace they had no affiliation with and had no reason to be there.

Just my opinion.

@ashainspace

Rowling seems to be implying that she's on the side of gay people and listens to them, but only if they share her viewpoint it seems

When Paisley's sold as many books as her then maybe she'll listen to his opinion.

Until then he needs to shut up.

I don't think any volume of book sales gives someone the right to silence others tbh. She's certainly within her rights to block him so she never has to interact personally with him.

@ashainspace

Rowling seems to be implying that she's on the side of gay people and listens to them, but only if they share her viewpoint it seems

When Paisley's sold as many books as her then maybe she'll listen to his opinion.

Until then he needs to shut up.

what relevance are book sales?

Kathleen Stock had to have a panic alarm installed in her home FFS. The abuse she received was that bad.

A reminder from the KS thread of the last bout of whataboutism that Margarita engaged in. The post by CuriousaboutSamphire at 15.06 being particularly pertinent.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4368594-Campaign-of-bullying-and-intimidation-at-Sussex-University-vs-Professor-Kathleen-Stock?pg=13

I would imagine that she has blocked DP because he is relenetless in his quest to silence women and stop them talking about their own rights. He never actually comes up with his own arguments that are actually worth engaging with, he works (and I mean works) solely on discrediting and trying to shut down (eg. That petition to get the LGBA to get their charity status revoked). I find his tactics quite unsettling tbh, and I guess JKR feels the same, and would rather just not engage.

Kathleen Stock does indeed have freedom to have her say, but so does everyone else.

In that case those placing the banner outside DP's workplace were just having their say, as it is a studio owned and run by BBC Scotland the banner could just as easily have been aimed at them.

@Hasselhoffsheadband "JK Rowling tweet by trans activists 'not criminal' - BBC News" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-60023868.amp

JKR has 'protesters' doxx her residence, where she (a domestic abuse survivor) and her children live. Police Scotland = meh.

David Paisley has a sheet with 'respect our existence or expect our resistance' pinned outside his public place of work. Police Scotland = puts their full might behind an investigation which almost ends up in court.

what relevance are book sales?

Some bloke called JKR 'babe' on Twitter (according to Owen Jones, gay men apparently have a free pass to use sexist language towards women) and she quote tweeted him to call him out on it with a comment about how she had sold a lot more books than him

The above poster was being sarcastic.

@MargaritaPie

"why are those did the same thing at Kathleen Stock's place of work not"

Because a lot of the protestors were students of the same college which they went to daily to study and protested during daytime?

In the case of Marion Millar and friends, they went out of their way to go a workplace they had no affiliation with and had no reason to be there.

Just my opinion.

Yeah, balaclavas and smoke bombs are totally part of everyday university life......

@MargaritaPie

JK Rowling has blocked DP on Twitter, according to DP.

Rowling seems to be implying that she's on the side of gay people and listens to them, but only if they share her viewpoint it seems.

So what? DP blocks anyone who doesn't toe his line whatever their sexual orientation. He is vicious to and about gay men who disagree with him and, for example, support LGBA. Is DP the defining and only true voice of gay people?

I didn't know who 'Vaush' was. Absolutely astonished to see that he has been a guest on Owen Jones' youtube channel.

The 1M match to charity is definitely good (although heaven knows she has enough money to just donate 2M straight away!)

Why on earth do people think she should be giving away more of her money, all the time, to different causes aside from the (many) she makes public? She's just one woman! There are are lot of people on Twitter saying the same thing as if she's bloody Smaug sitting on a pile of gold.

The woman gives millions away. Her charities do so much good work around the world. It's not just a face value thing. Why is it never enough?

@MargaritaPie

"individuals who set off smoke bombs"

By "smoke bombs" do you mean this: www.instagram.com/p/CUrjq01MbQ1/

It's a blue flare-like thing outdoors well away from any person. A smoke-bomb is different.

Kathleen Stock does indeed have freedom to have her say, but so does everyone else.

You mean like the TRAs who set off smoke bombs just down the road from Grenfell?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8112857/Transgender-activists-condemned-Grenfell-victims-set-smoke-bombs-close-block.html

Some bloke called JKR 'babe' on Twitter (according to Owen Jones, gay men apparently have a free pass to use sexist language towards women) and she quote tweeted him to call him out on it with a comment about how she had sold a lot more books than him smile

I saw that tweet, he'd tweeted it after she'd patronising called someone she didn't agree with sweetheart - took it as in reference to that.
Like on here when you say something, and someone says no love, or no sweetheart.
I might reply calling them hun or something.
That always goes down like a bucket of cold sick though, funny that.

@BraveBananaBadge

The 1M match to charity is definitely good (although heaven knows she has enough money to just donate 2M straight away!)

Why on earth do people think she should be giving away more of her money, all the time, to different causes aside from the (many) she makes public? She's just one woman! There are are lot of people on Twitter saying the same thing as if she's bloody Smaug sitting on a pile of gold.

The woman gives millions away. Her charities do so much good work around the world. It's not just a face value thing. Why is it never enough?

No person needs almost a billion pounds.

(I'm not denying that the money belongs to her legalistically, or that she did not earn it legalistically)

[quote DomesticatedZombie]I didn't know who 'Vaush' was. Absolutely astonished to see that he has been a guest on Owen Jones' youtube channel.

[/quote] Owen now claims that interviewing someone does not equal endorsement, which is quite right.

Except if you actually watch the video, he is nodding along to Vaush like a Churchill dog for a lot of it.

So important when you’re laying into a witch for her wrongthink to crowbar in the tenuous links to the supporting cast of witches who also have terrible thoughts, too, isn’t it?

All these awful women. Talking. Supporting each other. Refusing to just STFU like good girls. Shameful!

It’s just pathetic the lengths that some people will go to to pretend that their women-hating has some deep philosophical basis, or that harassing and threatening public figures for disagreeing with them has some sort of moral imperative attached.

These are all quotes from this Vaush person:

“Recognise this empirically correct fact. It is possible for an adult and a child to have a sexual relationship and for it to have positive outcomes on the child.”

“I’m yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument why the possession of child pornography should be illegal.”

“Owning child pornography is probably a hell of a lot more ethical than wearing the t-shirts on your backs.”

“If you’re not paying for child pornography then there is no argument in favour of morally condemning people who get it.”

“We’ve all jerked at the loli. And after we nut we look over our history and go ‘oh jeez, some of these girls looked pretty young’. I don’t give a fuck.”